This morning, I got an e-mail from a Christian friend of mine who was contemplating the idea that if god has such a beautiful plan of salvation via Christ's sacrifice, why did He make it so much of a hassle to show that it is fact? There are questions about how and why and wherefore, etc. etc. Challenges do not fall easily by the wayside.

His e-mail was his experience in overcoming doubts raised in his mind.

At least, that's what I think he was trying to say in his article. Without posting his exact commentary, that should give you adequate context for my reply, copied below.

--Wag--

------------------------------

I'm not 100% sure I get what you're trying to say, but I appreciate the effort. It seems almost that you're worried about the mechanism of establishing truth. Almost as if to say, "IF god could have done this at all, why leave any doubt about it?"

There are two kinds of people in the world (don't you just hate that statement?!!): One type questions everything, another type questions nothing. For some, it's good enough that the Bible says it. For others, no statement of any kind is good enough, it has to be seen with their own eyes. The two extremes are both faulty.

There are, of course, every degree of people in between. These are the ones with whom we take an interest.

These people are the reason we have science. People want to learn how things work. Sometimes, so much so, that they will buck the current trends in order to establish the facts and truths they discover. Galileo was an example of this. Prior to him, the general belief about the earth was that all planets and the sun and moon all orbited the earth. Galileo proved conclusively that in order for that to be true, the planets would have to have a kind of spiral orbit and even that concept was not fully workable. Finally, he broke the mold and discovered that the planets orbited the sun and the moon did, in fact, orbit the earth.

Pretty major accomplishment in his day but even more so because as a result, he was roundly persecuted by the church until later, others proved that he was correct. The church had to back off eventually but not before they went to great lengths to castigate Galileo, et al. I rather suspect that Galileo and his associates would have had to suggest that they were seeking to know the wonders of God's creation in order to avoid a righteous lynch mob but I digress a small degree!

So what is truth, really? How does "truth" compare to "fact?" Remember, Indiana Jones in, "Raiders of the Lost Ark?" He tells his archaeology class, "In archaeology, we deal with fact, not truth. If you want to talk about truth, the philosophy class is down the hall."

It's a salient point. Fact can be demonstrated with repeatable tests. For example, 2+2=4. A fact. We can test it over and over and over again and get the same answer. Every person on the planet can reproduce the result the exact same way every time. That's science. It doesn't always work, though. Science has it's failings, to be sure but it grows over time. More and more facts are discovered all the time because of the innate curiosities of scientists and their overwhelming drive to see things as they really are. Vision is increased over time and they can see more and more and more. That they often raise more questions in their answers is merely an assurance that science will continue to invfluence our lives

Truth, on the other hand, is centered very squarely on the foundation of Perception. How I see something may differ from how you see something. Given the same set of facts, we may both draw conclusions and opinions which differ mightily from each other. As we explain and write and speak of our thoughts on the subject, we may actually cause greater variation of thought as time progresses rather than actually coming to closer agreement on the topics. Othes who listen to us may choose sides or further muddy the waters with their own opinions. Two types of people, remember?!

Fact, you can't debate. Yes, there are fossils in the earth. Yes, they are hundreds of thousands or millions or even several billion years old. We can't debate that these are facts, nor can we dismiss them out of hand and ignore them. They are there in our faces. What we can still debate in the absence of additional facts, however, is how the fossils got there. That's where truth comes in. It may occur to me to believe that it's all evidence of evolution, in spite of missing facts. You, on the other hand, may see it as evidence of the might of god, also in spite of missing facts. We either argue about the truth or go our separate ways, content that we have the truth of the matter firmly in hand.

We both do exactly that, each convinced of the efficacy of our respective truths. However, the next blast of fact may dislodge our grip on truth fairly readily if we are open-minded. On the other hand, either of us my cling to that truth forever and shelter it, guarding it from all assault and variation if we, in fact, decide that no other outer influence may sway us from the truth. Dogma, blind chauvenism and unchallenged loyalty may prevent us from revising our truths when it is appropriate.

It goes both ways, though. At times, we may actually devoid ourselves of truth AND fact by failing to test the things in which we believe. That little collection of truths we hold in our hands. Granted, you can't always run around testing everything which comes our way against our individual handfuls of truths. We don't have time. However, we do have the catalog of truths in our minds and various instances of fact may raise questions about those truths if we allow them to do so. Nothing wrong with it either way. As we expose our truths to scrutiny, we find that healthy truths will flourish and grow and unhealthy truths can be easily discarded without further question.

A difficulty arises when someone approaches us with an assertion of truth. Is he using fact or truth to support his position? Often, truth is camoflaged as fact. It takes a degree of discernment to tell the difference. Avowals of, "He said, She said," or, "I saw it in an article," are sometimes used to support various assertions. Still, we can and should take the time to review and suggest that it be studied and discussed further in order to discover whether or not the statement is factual or not and whether or not the truth, OUR truth, needs to be redefined or refreshed.

Fact is discovered. Truth is created and destroyed.

Which brings us back to the beginnning of the thought. The Bible says it, is it true? Who cares? Is it factual, is the question. The original documents are available. Do the say what interpretation says they say? Yes, they do. Were they inspired by god or insanity? Were the stories faith-promoting folktales and legends or were they historically factual? Depending on the document, it could be a little of both. COULD be. Some of them, we don't know for sure. Some of them we do. Does a statement of fact make another unproven statement a fact also because the two are contained within the same cover? No. Each must stand on its own. Did Babylon conquer Israel about 600BC? Yup. Did they steal the ark of the covenant from the temple? We don't know.

Did Jesus get crucified? The bible says so. Is it fact? Does the secular record say? Josephus seems to think so, if I recall correctly. Was anyone resurrected from the dead? Facts outside the Bible do not support that assertion. We don't know if it's fact or not. Using the Bible as evidence, however, we can suggest it as truth to some and they will accept it as truth in their own hearts. Lacking supporting fact, they can use another agent of truth called "faith."

Faith can be a tricky thing. Grounded faith would propel us to act with the belief that something good will come of that act. Believing I can make a million bucks, I may act in faith by investing in the stock market and will do so with research and intelligence to maximize my chances of success.

There are those, however, who will cry, "Faith!" in prayer for the succor of the destitute and yet, they will not bring a sack of groceries to solve the immediate problem. By the same token, these same will sit in church regularly and frequently, all the while using faith to cover and protect their truths from the assault of fact. True faith would take truth and hold it to the candle of fact in order to assure oneself that the truth is well-grounded and can bear scrutiny.

I think lack of scrutiny is a failing among many, scientists and religionists both. Scientists, however, do have the means to test each other in many cases. Religionists . . . . What do they use to test each other? Assertions of fact? Very often not. Very often, only the Bible is used and the isolationist nature of the tome renders it too subjective for adequate testing. Opinion abounds as to beliefs, truths, religions and faiths. The claim that any one religion or sect could be a sole repository of truth becomes highly questionable at best and laughable at worst.

Who's going to win? The man who will ask questions. The man who will seek for answers at every possible turn. The man who is willing to understand that not everything WILL have an answer and that some truths must stand without scrutiny, simply because the truths cannot be tested against fact. It is the man who is willing to reassess his truths as often as possible and add new ones while disposing of those which are moldy and full of decay.

Truth is a good thing because it gives us a beautiful world in which to live outside the cold sterility of fact. Fact, however, is a good thing because it gives us the ability to check that the colors of our truths will still appease the eye.

If you believe in god and you search for answers from his good graces, you may find that there are missing facts. Until such time as god chooses to provide, it's possible to use faith to shore up truths in spite of absent facts. It may, however, cause you to doubt the efficacy of a god and that's okay. So long as the faiths used to support truths are not so exclusionary that we cannot see the light of additional information which may give us reason to conclude that perhaps we at least need to reassess the efficacy of our personal handful of truths.

At least, I think so.

:-)

--Wag--